Is the Mormon Faith a True Representation of Christianity?

Divides,

This might have been caught in moderation but.

According to scientists, there are likely over 10,000,000 habitable worlds in this Galaxy alone. Given the entire universe the probability of millions of inhabited worlds is close to 100%

I am going to call one of those Kolob.

See link below for more info.

Jared: “I am going to call one of those Kolob.

See link below for more info.”

The link didn’t come through. Please try again.

Hi Jared,

You have several times stated this idea, quoted from one of your comments above, “Therefore, to me, agreeing on the description of the nature of God, seems a strange qualification for Christianity.”

I am posting a couple of definitions here from the Thayer’s Lexicon and then I am going to quote a couple of Bible verses where those definitions are applicable.

only–Greek monos (Strong’s G3441)

1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely

true–Greek alethinos (Strong’s G228)

1) that which has not only the name and resemblance, but the real nature corresponding to the name, in every respect corresponding to the idea signified by the name, real, true genuine

a) opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated or pretended

b) it contrasts realities with their semblances

c) opposite to what is imperfect defective, frail, uncertain

2) true, veracious, sincere

And here are the Scripture verses:

John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

I John 5:20 “And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”

Please note carefully that in these verses eternal life is linked with knowing the ONLY TRUE God. And please note again the definition of true and also the definition of Only given.

From these two verses, it seems to me that it is really a vital matter of eternal life and death to understand who this God really is.

Since science has not yet been able to provide a testable theory of how life might arise from non-life, I would say that the probability of life on other planets is zero–unless God put it there.

It’s also not necessary to believe in a world wide flood; the geological evidence is against it, and the Biblical text not only does not demand it, it seems to imply that the flood was local.

But those issues are starting to take us away from the centrality of Jesus and His claims.

regards,
John

John,

I agree, its off the subject.. . however the point was that it is very likely that God put life elsewhere, as Mormons believe, and therefore it seems strange to ridicule this particular LDS belief, as Divides was doing.

Cheryl,

I agree with you that knowing God is the key. However knowing God and “agreeing on the description of the nature of God” are two very different things.

From what I have read, God is known not through assenting to some creed. I think if you asked 30 Protestants or Catholics 25 of them would not give the theologically correct answer as to what the Trinity is. They would give some modalistic answer. However, those that “walk in the light” and endeavor to follow Jesus would have an understanding of God regardless of what their theology was.

John 1:1 “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. ”

In John 17:3 it tells us “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

Here is says that there is the one and only God, and then it separately mentions Jesus Christ. If God the father is the only God, why would

I think this is all very unclear when you read all of the new Testament as a whole. I think its perfectly reasonable to consider Jesus a separate being from God, and it may be reasonable to consider him somehow joined at the ‘substance”. However, even if you believe in the trinity, this is simply an assent to a mystery. Since we have no experience or reference point to intellectually understand or scientifically investigate, we simply cannot explain the of God (we can barely explain the nature of the human mind).

Therefore I think it is off-track to focus on certain creeds when discovering God or discovering who is a Christian.

There are plenty that walk in the light that will readily admit they can’t explain God in human terms (who can?)

I Corinthians 2 seems most instructive on this:

” However, as it is written:
“No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him”— but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

From what I have read, this seems the only reasonable path to understanding God, and I don’t think this Spiritual understanding is going to give you any particular theological competence. I am sure you know Godly people that just don’t get theology.

I think that it is clear that the New Testament explains that we can know God without being able to explain God. When you read a particular description of God, it will ultimately end in mystery. So I think its strange that we are arguing so stridently about which mystery is the most accurate.

Divides,

here is the quote:

The number of inhabited planets in the Galaxy
Tang, T. B.
British Interplanetary Society, Journal (Interstellar Studies) (ISSN 0007-084X), vol. 37, Sept. 1984, p. 410-413.

” Planets that at present host life number about 10 million in the Galaxy of 100 billion stars, according to the theoretical calculation presented here. The argument is based on five premises: (1) Planets that have mean surface temperatures in the range of 273 to 280 K at birth do not undergo runaway greenhouse heating nor runaway glaciation in the course of their evolution. (2) These planets do not retain their primordial hydrogenic atmospheres. (3) Any such planet found around a late-F or Population-I G or early-K star residing in a spiral arm is almost certain to be capable of harboring biological activity. (4) Nearly every star possesses planets, the orbital radii of which follow a geometrical progression with 1.73 being the common ratio. (5) In an ensemble of solar systems around stars of a given spectral class, planets are uniformly distributed over the orbital radius zone that corresponds to the 273-280 K temperature range. “

Jared,

I think maybe you are missing my point. That definition of true I gave above as in “true God”, makes it very plain to me that John is speaking about the real and actual God–God as He really is not some God that we have made up in our imaginations or some other version of God that has been taught to us. To know the real and actual God is what gives us eternal life. And I agree, we can’t understand or know all about Him, much is mystery. But we must know Him as He has revealed Himself to us in His Word, the Bible.

These definitions of “know” and “understand”, again from Thayer’s seem to make it quite plain that there is a mental knowing or understanding involved in this whole process as well. As a matter of fact, the Greek word translated here as “understanding” is often translated as “mind” elsewhere in the New Testament.

(Strongs G1271) Thayer’s Lexicon definition of “understanding”

1) the mind as a faculty of understanding, feeling, desiring

2) understanding

3) mind, i.e. spirit, way of thinking and feeling

4) thoughts, either good or bad

(Strong’s G1097) Thayer’s Lexicon definition of “Know”

1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel

a) to become known

2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of

a) to understand

b) to know

3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman

4) to become acquainted with, to know

Jared,

I want to say I am sorry if I have come across harshly on this issue. I don’t mean to be harsh. It is just that I feel this is a very important point and it hasn’t seemed that you have quite understood what I have been saying here.

Cheryl.
Obviously Jared is grounded in his belief. He claims to have the basic knowledge of Christianity. He does not want to accept the Bible descriptions of God, he just wants to hold onto the Mormon description.

The Bible in Truth. Not a man made fantasy. The Bible is accurate, and certainly the Mormon founders refused to believe the accuracy of the Bible. But one thing Jared does not understand is this, as much as he want the BoM to be accurate, it is not and can never be.

Jared will not accept evidence from Mormon sources. Just because a book contains words lifted from another book does not make it true. The BoM has been proven unequivocally untrue historically and doctrinally. But the Articles of Faith of the LDS says they accept the Bible to be accepted as long as it is accurately translated and yet never once requiring the same of the BoM.

So then Jared, if you believe the Bible as long as it is accurate…who told you which parts were accurate? Do you throw out the rest of the Bible if it is not compatible? How can you prove to me the BoM is accurate? You show me proof, and if you say because Joseph Smith said so, then you know what my answer will be. So I challenge you Jared, prove to me it is accurate. You require my Bible to be so, therefore I require that of the BoM.

If you say because the words mirror those of the Bible, we know it was plagiarized. So find another route. Take Joseph Smith away from the equation and then prove it.

You prove to me the angel Moroni exists. You prove to me God was a man (which is Hinduism). You prove to me God approves of plural wives (which is Islamic). You prove to me God approves of translating the BoM by seerstone (which is witchcraft). You prove to me all these men were successors of the Aaronic priesthood (which you have to be Levite to be, not Ephraimite). You prove to me the order of Melchizedeck (twice mentioned in the Bible, one was King of Salem and other was Jesus). You prove to me where one apostle in the LDS denounced all these fallacies, then I will believe you.

Jared,

I am wondering if my added explanation in comment # 07 above helped make my understanding any clearer to you?

Sorry for the late responses, I was enjoying a little vacation time with the kids. Lots of reading tonight 😉

John CT
#280: Michael L. hasn’t convinced me, and I’m not a Mormon. Unless Michael has copyrighted the word “Christian”, Jared is free to call himself whatever he want

I definitely do not have that copyright 😉 and it’s definitely not my purpose to convince anyone. But perhaps share my perspective on the matter at hand and hopefully the Spirit can use the seed planted.
On the other hand, let’s assume someone who has never heard of Christ, Christianity or anything similar is now exposed to the Mormon Church and teachings. And then becomes a member and finally meets a Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or similar. Would this person then be able to say he is part of the same belief and religion ? That, I believe, is the topic of this discussion.

Jared
# 282
Or would someone who “does what Christ teaches” , sold all his goods, picked up his cross, loved his neighbor, yet does not believe he is a sinner in need of a savior, or accept the divinity of Christ, would that person be able to call himself a Christian ? After all, he’s doing what Jesus told him to do and he is a “follower of Jesus”.

It’s not what you like to call yourself. It’s what comes as part of the package. Just like the “I’m an American” example I started off with.

Once again, has nothing to do on whether Mormons can be believers, followers of Christ or justified (Being Saved). But their belief system is not what I would call “Christianity”.

Jared asked the question as well on whether God would judge him for believing in Joseph Smith. Kara gave a pretty solid answer in post #285 on that.

I would rather ask this. “How can a created being, a BORN being, a being that you call ‘your brother’, save you ?” We all know only God can save you. And I am afraid He won’t necessarily have mercy on those that reject Christ for who He was or “follow Him” in actions, but not in Spirit. Once again, glad it’s not my call. But afraid and praying for a lot of people (which Jared btw includes you too now and a lot of RC’s from my youth and direct family)

Jared,
#290
Yes they do. I pointed it out as part of the Gospel Principles study material in an earlier post. I also have had quite several of my friends, who are LDS members, explain to me that you do believe that Jesus was an eternal Spirit somewhere, like you believe we all are hence he is your brother, but that it took a physical act of “the Father” to bring him into human form. Hence the play on words of created or born. You’re correct it didn’t take the physical act for Christ to be created, but it did take the act for Him to be born.

#296
There is no Biblical definition of Christianity. Search as you may. Christ came to show us the way. It’s actually why the earliest Christians called themselves “Followers of ‘The Way'”. They didn’t use a cross as a symbol since it was such a horrific symbol of death (compare it with using an electrical chair as a symbol today ??), but used a fish.
But this doesn’t mean that in the 21st century the word “Christianity” doesn’t have a connotation with it. Like it or not.
The Bible does teach us on what it takes to be made “righteous with God”. And believing Christ is NOT God, is not part of that equation. I think I mentioned that pretty solidly in your blog.

#305
That’s 1 John 1:5 and following you’re quoting 😉 Not John 1:1 Sorry.. just happens to be my favorite book. Read on where it mentions blasphemy against the Spirit and the antichrist stuff 😉

I think I’m caught up, but unless there’s more direct questions or rebuttals to me, I think Kara and Cheryl are doing an excellent job at helping Jared out on his quest.

Jared,
If there’s any question you may have, please don’t hesitate. I will be praying for clarity (Whatever way that may lead you).

In Him
Mick

Perhaps one final comment.

The never ending circle is that several members have provided Scripture passages and/or quite old (anywhere from 500 years to 1,500 years) theological interpretations.
The rebuttal is “How do you know the Bible is right” or “That is an extra-biblical theological deduction”.

When members point out a flaw in the Mormon faith, the rebuttal is that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or another Mormon scholar said it, so it must be true.

As long as LDS members adhere that Joseph Smith is a prophet and his teachings are accurate, and any of our arguments are swept under the carpet by being “extra-biblical”, we will never reach common ground.

That being said, I do sincerely hope and pray that those honestly seeking, just like I once was when I left the Roman Catholic church, will find our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And I thank everyone who is trying to help us “seekers” find their way.

In Him
Mick

TUAD wrote (waaay back at the beginning):

“Paging Seth R., paging Seth R.! Mormonism is on code blue, where are you?”

Sorry I’m late. Been insanely busy at work and something had to give.

I will try to read through the entire thread sometime, but for now, a few thoughts with respect to the original post only. Sorry if I duplicate anything Jared C. (hi Jared) has already covered.

CMP’s main point is that Mormons cannot be considered Christians because they reject “the Trinity.” Leaving aside the issue of whether belief in the Trinity is a requirement for the “Christian” label, let’s just focus on: do Mormons believe it or not?

Ask your average Mormon and you’ll get a “no” answer. Most lay Mormons (and our leaders chosen from among the laity) have a rather negative view of the word “Trinity” and will vehemently reject the term with respect to their own belief. You can probably even find some appropriately condemnatory statements from LDS leadership on the word if you look.

So, there you are. Plain as day – Mormons reject the Trinity. Right?

Well, not quite.

Whenever you are dealing with Mormon rhetoric that appears harsh to Protestant or Catholic ears, you have to step back and ask what the Mormon is question is really responding to.

In the case of the Trinity, ask the Mormon what he thinks the Trinity means.

With a little probing, you’ll quickly find out that he thinks it is equivalent with modalism. You know that idea there is numerically one divine being who simply wears different hats at different times. One day he has his “Father” hat on, but the next day – whoops! he’s got his “Jesus” hat on now. And then the day after – the “Holy Spirit” hat. Mormons tend to find this notion repugnant, and they tend to equate the word “Trinity” with the idea of a modalistic God.

So good news for Mormons – traditional Christians don’t believe in that either. At least the informed ones don’t. Modalism is roundly condemned in traditional Christian circles as a heresy. So, actually, Mormons and other Christians ought to be on the same page here. We both believe in three beings. So far so good.

Say what you want about Mormons – you certainly can’t accuse them of being modalists. So we can pause now for a brief moment of unity and kumbaya singing.

OK, all done with that. What about the idea of “One God?”

This is where the problems start. You will definitely find Mormons who are tri-theists (the idea of three divine beings who are merely playing on the same team). I’ll admit that right up front. You’ll even find highly tri-theistic rhetoric from LDS authorities.

First point I’d like to make on this score is that a lot of the LDS tri-theistic rhetoric is a direct response to perceived modalism among traditional Christians. Most Mormons are under the perception that the vast majority of traditional Christians are modalists. So our rhetoric can sometimes be unduly tri-theistic in an attempt to compensate for all that “gooey modalism” in the other camp.

It doesn’t help matters when a lot of the Protestant counter-cult movement, in response to PERCEIVED Mormon tri-theism overcompensates with rhetoric that sounds alarmingly modalist. We just keep overcompensating for each other. This is a very real risk that we run with interfaith dialogue that is primarily apologetic in nature. We are so concerned with refuting or distancing from our opponent, that we lose sight of the truth.

It’s like a dysfunctional young married couple where the dad is more laid back with the kids and the mother is more strict. Each parent keeps overcompensating for the deficiencies of the other parent. Dad becomes more and more lax to “make up” for how strict mom is being, while mom becomes more and more up tight to compensate for her “irresponsible” mate. Meanwhile the kids suffer from whiplash and end up playing mom and dad off each other.

So I’m suggesting that the tri-theism of Mormonism can often be more artificial than it is real. Not saying it’s not there, but keep open to the possibility that we aren’t as tri-theistic as we first appear.

But is the Mormon God really One God?

With qualifications, yes, actually. But not in the same way many Christian theologians mean it. One thing I’ve found in my interfaith discussions is that the question of whether God is “One” is really a rigged question when coming from many Christian apologists. What they really mean is “”is God one substance?”

Philosophical curiosities like “substance” and “homioousis” (however you spell that) are not, and never have been of much concern to Mormons. We find them to be overly-complicated, extra-biblical, and ultimately nonsensical. So if you’re going to nail us to the wall and demand to know if we support the idea that Father, Son and Spirit are all “one substance,” we’ll be forced to say no. We do not believe they are “one essence” or “one substance.” We find such concepts utterly at odds with the explicit biblical language requiring three beings.

But we do believe in a profound unity of Father, Son and Spirit. At least, according to our accepted scriptures, we are supposed to. There are several passages in both the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures that demand a unified One God. It even explicitly speaks of the Father, Son and Spirit being “One God.” So “One God” is certainly a requirement of Mormon scripture.

To be honest, I think many Mormons actually unduly underplay this part of their own scriptures. I spoke earlier about how apologetic-motivated explications of doctrine can distort. Many Mormons are just as concerned with boundary maintenance as their Protestant counterparts. This can lead them to downplay their own verses emphasizing unity in the Godhead. It’s probably the same impulse that leads Evangelical scholars to pretend the New Testament verses about theosis aren’t there.

The Father, Son, and Spirit that I see in Mormon scripture may be distinct beings, but they are profoundly and radically unified. They are one in will, purpose, thought, and love.

I have actually been greatly aided in my understanding of the “threeness” and “oneness” of God by the work of other Christians in this respect. Particularly, the new “Social Trinitarian” model that is being advocated by several current Christian scholars. Social Trinitarianism posits that the unity of God is a unity of love called “perichoresis.” A love so profound and consuming that the Father, Son and Spirit literally “indwell” within each other in love. As a Mormon, I have no problem with this concept whatsoever.

So, am I a Trinitarian?

Depends. Do you consider Social Trinitarianism valid or not? If you are willing to at least countenance Social Trinitarian claims, then you might find that Mormons are not quite so far “out there” as you think. I can tell you that I know of several Mormon scholars who are all but endorsing the Social Trinitarian model.

Long post. Hope it’s been helpful.

Seth R,

Thanks for the time. I appreciate you taking the time to write your post. Some good comments for us to reflect on.

That being said, and being probably a little more familiar with Mormon doctrine than most, I still think there are some challenges with the Mormon interpretation of Jehova / Elohim, the connotation of “begotten” surrounding Christ, etc. It leaves somewhat the possibility of an Arian interpretation of who Christ is open in the LDS Church. Even if then one would accept that Christ somehow entered into a “perichoresis” with the Father and the Spirit to form the Trinity, it is a challenge for traditional Christians to understand and accept.

I’m definitely reaching the limits of my theological knowledge here, so feel free to correct me, but I believe Social Trinitarianism actually accepts three different “personalities” that each have their own consciousness which is somehow in harmony. Which would be against the “homoousios” of the Trinitarian definition of one substance. Not three different substances that are somehow in perichoresis

I also believe that perichoresis is actually quite old (Capadocian Fathers in like the 4th century I think) and was actually originally used to re-confirm the total harmony of the one substance. Social Trinitarianism has somewhat hi-jacked the concept I think

Feel free to correct me where I err… I long to learn and understand.

But you are quite right that this is starting to sound modalistic 😉

My take on it… google the legend of Augustine and the seashell. I’m with him… we’ll never get it right on this side 😉

In Him
Mick

Well, admittedly Michael, I limited myself solely to the issue of Trinity. I actually think Trinity is one of the less problematic divides between Mormons and the rest of the Christian world.

The ontology of God and humanity is a much stickier and intractable subject. But one battle at a time.

OK…

I’ve just read all the way up to post #145 on this thread (after that, my endurance gave out and I started skimming).

I have to say something here – I’m rather disappointed in Pen and Parchment right now.

Usually, when I read posts on this blog, I encounter a wide range of opinions, beliefs and exegesis coming from a variety of people from all over the big umbrella of “traditional Christianity.” There is diversity of opinions, intelligent debate, and great deal of scholarly rigor.

I’m sorry C. Michael Patton, but what happened?

With the exception of a very-few individuals from the traditional Christian camp who made a sincere effort to reach out and have a human-to-human discussion, we’ve been treated to a three-person tag-team of a limited – SUPER limited – slice of the Christianity I’ve seen presented on this site in other posts.

I mean, go over Kara Kittle’s comments. Aren’t some of you embarrassed by this? This is the public face you guys feel comfortable showing to another faith tradition? Why are you guys letting the fundies over at CARM do all your water-carrying for you?

Sorry, I’m really being to hard on Kara. Her views represent a definite presence in the American Christian landscape, and I realize that her views are both welcome and hopefully respected on this website (I myself have a hard time respecting them, but that’s my own weakness I guess).

But come on! Why is her viewpoint and Steve’s (I can’t say that TUAD showed any viewpoint at all in this entire thread, other than “you go girl” so I’m ignoring him) the only one getting any air time in a comment thread that had gone up to 145 comments by the time I stopped reading?

Having just Jared and Alma be the only representatives of Mormonism makes sense because this is a Christian and not a Mormon website, so you can’t expect a lot of Mormons to show (as I mentioned, I was off the air on this website for almost a month due to work). But this is a freaking Protestant website!

So where are the Protestants? Honestly, are you guys happy with the job this tag team has been doing of representing your side?

I’m highly disappointed in you guys – all the silent observers out there who let a tiny group of unhinged activists dominate the entire discussion and sabotage what could have been a useful discussion and drag it instead into a series of CARM-style propaganda exercises. I know you guys are smarter than this. I also know a lot of you do not agree with the version of Christianity that Kara and Steve have been promoting. A lot of you don’t even agree with their exegesis of specific Bible passages.

So why are you letting them do your dirty work for you?

Maybe a lot of you don’t think you need to bother with this stuff. Maybe you think the counter-cult element of traditional Christianity is doing a grand job of defending the frontier. But not all thinking Christians agree with that complacency. I’d encourage you to have a look at this article by Paul Owen:

http://www.cephas-library.com/mormon_apologetics_losing_battle.html

and ask yourself if you are really OK with the Christian face that this blog post and discussion thread has presented to your Mormon neighbors.

Well, are you?

I had very high hopes coming into this thread (late as I was), but so far, it’s been a huge disappointment. Maybe after comment #145 it improves, but somehow I doubt it. I suppose I’m being harsh and I won’t be surprised at all if this comment runs afoul of the moderators, but I’m just really frustrated right now and very disappointed in Pen and Parchment at the moment. I’m not mad that the views expressed here were expressed. What I’m mad about is that they were the ONLY views expressed.

(and no Kara and Steve, I’m not really all that interested in hearing any more of your viewpoint – I’ve had my fill for the month, thanks)

Seth, you are correct. The level of discussion has not been high, but I don’t really expect that at blogs. I find that blog discussion frequently parallels talk radio–which is definitely not academic. However, some learning often does take place.

Very interesting post #343 on trinity. The majority of non-LDS Christians (at least those who understand the concept to some extent), would concur that the one substance doctrine is an essential defining aspect of traditional Christianity (I’m avoiding the word “orthodox” and “heretical” because who is who depends on which side of the fence one stands; from my vantage point you’re the heretic, but of course vice versa).

You mentioned on the “liars” thread that the Bible has errors. Which ones do you perceive as among the most problematic?

regards,
John

Seth,

Something I said obviously struck a chord in you.

I just proclaimed Christ and Him alone. That Word will either ring true with someone, or they will reject it in favor of nothing, or a brand of self-focused religion that may be a lot worse than nothing.

When Jesus sent the disciples out to share the good news of Himself, He told them not to waste time with unbelievers. “If they reject the message then just leave them.” (He said)

The universe does not revolve around you and your unbelief. That you have to add something to Christ (the goofy wacky Mormon religion) is your problem…not mine.

So have a nice life. I sincerely wish and pray that someday you will chuck all that stupid religious stuff in favor of a trust in the Living God Jesus the Christ.

The harvest is great and the workers are few so I cannot in good conscience waste any more time with you.

Ciao.

John CT,

I’m reluctant to go into a list of problems with the Bible for a couple reasons:

1. I believe in the Bible.

2. I don’t consider throwing stones to be a particularly effective method of declaring the Gospel.

You can read a lot of the changes, and controversies surrounding the Bible by reading the modern scholarship – Bart Ehrman seems to be the most accessible stuff on the subject at the moment. Jared C. already covered a few problems above. I’m not going to do a rehash of it.

Suffice it to say, I do not consider ANY of the changes made to the Book of Mormon to be significant and none of them are any more significant than changes similarly made to the Bible. If you count every difference in every punctuation mark in every edition of the Book of Mormon, the result is well over 100,000 changes. But far and away, the vast majority of those changes are nothing more than punctuation and spell corrections. For example, the word meet — meaning “appropriate” — as it appears in 1_Ne. 7:1, was spelled “mete” in the first edition of the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. (This is a common error made by scribes of dictated texts.) “Mete” means to distribute, but the context here is obvious, and so the spelling was corrected in later editions.

This is were our critics get their vaunted “100,000 changes” accusation – grammar and punctuation.

Other changes were a little more significant, but still inconsequential at the end of the day. Some of these typographical errors do affect the meaning of a passage or present a new understanding of it, but not in a way that presents a challenge to the divinity of the Book of Mormon. One example is 1_Ne. 12:18, which in all printed editions reads “a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God,” while the manuscript reads “the sword of the justice of the Eternal God.” In this instance, the typesetter accidentally dropped the s at the beginning of sword.

The current (1981) edition of the Book of Mormon has this notice printed at the bottom of the page opposite 1 Nephi, chapter 1:

“Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

There are surprisingly few meaningful changes to the Book of Mormon text, and ALL of them were made by Joseph Smith himself in editions published during his lifetime. These changes include:

* “the Son of” added to 1_Ne. 11:18; 1_Ne. 11:21, 1_Ne. 11:32, and 1_Ne. 13:40.
* “or out of the waters of baptism” added to 1_Ne. 20:1.
* “white” changed to “pure” in 2_Ne. 30:6.
* “Benjamin” changed to “Mosiah” in Mosiah 21:28 and Eth. 4:1.
* “Words missing in Alma 32:30” Alma 32:30-31

The historical record shows that these changes were made to clarify the meaning of the text, not to alter it.

Here is a side by side comparison of the changes made to the passage in Alma 32:30 for instance:

1830 edition of the Book of Mormon:

[Alma 32:30] But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. [Alma 32:31] And now behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness

1981 edition of the Book of Mormon:

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

So this is where our critics get their accusation of the Book of Mormon being a flawed and much-corrected book. One has to ask – where’s the beef? There’s not a single change made to the Book of Mormon that is any more significant than changes made to the Bible. Which is to say – not at all.

Like the Book of Mormon, most of the changes made to the Bible text were harmless spelling and grammar corrections. Nothing to get excited about at all. Other changes APPEAR at first to be possibly substantive, but turn out to be mostly irrelevant.

My remarks about changes in the Bible had one purpose only – to warn other Christians against throwing stones when they live in glass houses. I’ve been burned before when I went overboard in attacking the Christian faith of someone who was attacking my Mormon faith and was rightly reprimanded for it by a good friend of mine. These sorts of affairs tend to end up as circular firing squads. So I’m reluctant to start shooting in this one.

Oh, I get it. I thought you (Seth) meant something else by “errors”. So, no need for a list of errors.

However, aren’t the grounds for the changes, and the methodology substantially different between the Bible and the Book of Mormon? In the case of the Bible, there was one original document, subsequently copied (with errors), and then ultimately lost. The point of correcting the errors is to correct the errors in the copies to get back to the original document. I thought that we still have the original Book of Mormon, so why then the corrections?

regards,
John

John, that’s actually a much more complex question than you were probably thinking. It speaks to several related issues:

1. Prophetic infallibility
2. Scripture inerrancy
3. How God communicates with us generally

First off, there is no Mormon doctrine of prophetic infallibility. We believe that prophets are human and not everything they say or do is perfect. Thus, we simply believe that when Joseph Smith and his scribes wrote the Book of Mormon, they made typos. Pretty simple.

Secondly, there is no Mormon doctrine of scripture inerrancy. We believe scripture – ALL scripture can and does contain human error. The mind and will of God can never be adequately expressed by the frail mechanisms of human language. For starters, to have an inerrant Bible and an inerrant Book of Mormon, you’d need a perfect language to write it in. Since we do not have such a language, the record is and will always be – by necessity – flawed.

This is actually consistent with our scriptures. Here are a few Book of Mormon passages relating to the issue:

1 Nephi 19: 6
6 Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself.

2 Nephi 33: 4
4 And I know that the Lord God will consecrate my prayers for the gain of my people. And the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong unto them; for it persuadeth them to do good; it maketh known unto them of their fathers; and it speaketh of Jesus, and persuadeth them to believe in him, and to endure to the end, which is life eternal.

Mormon 8: 17
17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mormon 9: 31-33
31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.
32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

And finally…

Ether 12: 23-26
23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;
24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.
25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.
26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

I think these passages of scripture make it quite clear that even the original gold plates that Joseph translated from were flawed from the beginning, being a joint effort by both God and human beings. LDS doctrine has never claimed the Book of Mormon to be perfect or inerrant.

Finally, LDS doctrine rejects Calvinist notions that God meticulously controls every aspect of the universe. We believe that God is capable of such absolute control, but that he has voluntarily relinquished that control in order that we might be truly free to choose him. The notion that God would step in with some sort of mind-control and manipulate the pen of Joseph Smith, or Paul the Apostle, or Isaiah to produce a perfect document is utterly foreign to Mormon thinking. We believe that God works with free human beings. Even when those free human beings are writing God’s own holy word, he will not step in and force a human mind or a human hand without that person’s consent.

Thus a flawed Bible or a flawed Book of Mormon is not a matter of great concern to me. What flaws are there in the Book of Mormon, I deem to be not significant enough to lose faith in the book as a whole. I feel similarly about the Bible.

Seth R.,

What you are talking about is very like Open Theism. Esisgesis to prove a theory of man, rather than exegesis to translate correctly what God says is His unchanging word.

It is pure and simple replacement theology. Why would God change His word by making a modern day Moses out of Joseph Smith, when He had already sent Jesus, His own Son, to be His earthly representative of grace and truth?

Sorry, but it is hard to believe such a story is true, because Joseph Smith would have then trumped Christ and His Word. and Christ’s death on the cross as a sacrifice for sin would have been trumped by words on a golden tablet. The difference between Joe and Paul was that Paul exegeted the truth that had already been given. He did not try to re-invent the wheel, like Smith.

And the bottom line is still that Christ died for our sins. Joseph Smith died for his. And he was not resurrected, nor is he capable of doing so himself, or doing that for anyone else. That means I believe the direct word of the one who can save me.

We can discuss theology until the cows come home, but that fact alone makes me know which account is more accurate.

And your attempt to make everyone else’s time and effort before you entered the discussion of no account- that’s rather a cheap shot.

CMP: “Is the Mormon faith a true representation of Christianity? No.

Can individual Mormons be Christian? Only if their belief about who Christ is deviates from official Mormon teachings. “

Michael L.: “As long as you adhere to the statement that we have the same belief, faith and that Mormons are the true Christians, we are delusional and can not have a serious theological debate. Any discussion becomes pure speculation on words, terminology and an exercise in translation or grammar. But not theology. Stop calling yourself Christian”

“This post is about whether or not Mormonism is a true representation of Christianity. Not about whether someone from LDS can be saved. Doesn’t mean right or wrong. But stop calling yourself a Christian.”

——-

Thank you CMP and Michael L. for your definitive and clarifying declarations.

mbaker,

Yes, I am actually open theist. So are several Mormon scholars. I take this position because it is consistent with correct exegesis of scripture – including the Bible. It is those who believe in meticulous control or meticulous foreknowledge who are engaging in eisegesis. The mere fact that the God of open theism is actually coherent (unlike other versions of God) is a nice side-bonus.

Joseph Smith did not, in fact bring forth anything new. There is a reason we Mormons call it the Restored Gospel. Joseph’s calling was the Restoration of all things.

Yes, Jesus arrived on earth. Yes, it was important. But it did not change the need for prophets to declare his central message anew to every generation of humanity. Even if you had a perfect account of Jesus’ teachings – which you do not – you would still need prophets today to declare it to you.

God does not change in his perfections. But he does change in his interactions with his children – something the Bible makes quite clear.

I rather expected that you were an Open Theist. I have had many exhaustive conversations with them, and one I have become friends with, although he knows better than to try to exegete a whole new religion out of the few verses which might possibly apply. So I understand exactly what you believe.

I should also tell you it is useless to argue Calvinism or Aminianism with me, because I can accept neither one as being completely correct. This is a post comparing Christianity and Mormonishn. They are not the same either.

Yes, we need folks to speak God’s word, but prophets, no. The apostles were not prophets like those who rule the LDS church nowadays, in the capacity of high priests, they were men who were appointed to be bearers of the Good news of Jesus Christ, whom John the Baptist prophesied would come after Him. They were teachers of the doctrine laid down by the cornerstone of the church itself – Christ. They did not preach obscure man-made philosophies. In fact, they repeatedly warned that anyone who did preach another gospel was to be avoided.

There is mention of two witnessess appearing in the last days, but none whatsoever of Joseph Smith. One would certainly think if the message he carried was so important there certainly would have been at least one biblical mention of his name, as another prophet to come with a different message which would, in effect, be a different gospel. Yet all we have is the word of a 13 year boy.

Not enough for me.

To some of the above posters: it all depends on what is meant by “true Christianity”, which is in turn dependant on one’s viewpoint. It it refers to that contained in the core doctrines, such as those expressed in the early creeds, then no. But of course a Mormon would think he is a true Christian and we are not. Certainly docetists, Arians, Pelagians, Socinians, etc., all believed they were true Christians (and don’t forget that Roman Catholics and protestants got into this name calling for several hundred years). Mormonism can certainly be considered “heretical Christianity” by those more traditional in their beliefs. This does not mean that they can’t use the word “Christian”.

However, I do have a questions for the Mormon readers of this blog. J. Smith believed that he was inspired to read and translate Egyptian hieroglyphics. One of the books, the Book of Abraham, contains prints of some of the hieroglyphics he translated. One of them contains, in part, a picture of the Egyptian god Min, which Smith described as being a picture of God, seated in the presence of the Holy Spirit pictured as a dove. The God has a large protrubance extending from his (male) groin. Dr. Hugh Nibley, one of the foremost Mormon scholars has written of Min: “As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking promiscuity, which is hardly relieved by its ritual nature…His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal…and he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family; he had the most numerous and varied religious entourage of all the gods, consisting mostly of his huge harem…The hymns, or rather chanting of his worshippers were accompanied with lewd dancing and carousing…to the exciting stimulus of a band of sistrum-shaking damsels” (Abraham in Egypt, p. 210). Now, recall that Joseph Smith said that this figure represented God sitting on His throne. Mormon Michael Dennis Rhoades has explained this by stating that “Joseph Smith mentions here the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove and God ‘revealing through the heavens the grand key-words of the priesthood.’ The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined with blessing of the Priesthood in one’s posterity eternally” (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273).

Apart from alleged errors in the Mormon scriptures, raised by others above but on which I take no position at this time, it seems obvious to me that this Mormon understanding of God is so completely at odds with traditional protestant and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox doctrine of God that one could reasonably assert that they are different Gods, though derived in part from some of the same Scriptures (e.g., the Bible). The God of Mormonism is sexually active, begetting children in the spirit-world, but the God we worship did not and cannot be sexually active, nor beget children in the Spirit world.

Seth et al., I don’t see how these different understandings of God can be reconciled.

regards,
John

“a different message which would, in effect, be a different gospel.”

Yeah. Good thing Mormonism isn’t “a different Gospel” right?

It will be easier to debate with you if you would at least pretend that I actually believe in my religion, and start talking to me rather than using me solely as an example for other Christian readers here.

One thing needs to be clarified here before we proceed further.

The conventional Mormon narrative is that Jesus came – established true Church – left it to his apostles – apostles died – Priesthood authority lost along with certain spiritual gifts – Apostasy – Joseph Smit – Restoration of Jesus’ true Gospel.

That’s it, in a nutshell.

I think this narrative, while serviceable, doesn’t really have a lot of nuance and needs a bit of adjustment in light of what we know about the history of Christianity.

My own view is that Jesus’ apostles never were completely successful in setting up the “True Religion.” Jesus didn’t do it, because Church-building was not his mission to begin with. Instead it was delegated to the apostles to manage as best they could. At this, the apostles succeeded in some ways and failed in others.

For instance, the apostles were never in a position to reclaim the temple from the Jews. When the temple was destroyed, any possibility of doing so was lost. Thus the temple component of Christianity was lost. If the temple could have been claimed for Christ, I fully expect Peter would have done so and Christian ritual today would look that much closer to Mormon ritual. But they couldn’t – so no temple for early Christianity. Now today, people try to rewrite history and lamely claim why we never needed a temple in the first place.

Another thing, the apostles were interested primarily in spreading the word of Jesus as far and wide as they could. They paid little attention to the business of Church-building. This was instead delegated to the local Bishops (or the equivalent). Part of the reason for this is that the apostles appear to have been laboring under the mistaken notion that Jesus would be returning in glory in their lifetimes. There would be plenty of time to clean up the organization at that time (or it would no longer matter), so they tended to neglect the Church organization. Paul made some valiant attempts – which is why we have his Epistles today. But he was ultimately defeated by an impossible geographic reality. There was no way to successfully police the doctrine, practice, and organization of the Church given limits of transportation and communication.

I consider the death of the apostles a contributing factor to the “Great Apostasy.” But just a contributor. I feel the process of apostasy was already in full swing during the ministry of the apostles, as Paul’s panicked letters to different corners of the Church make fairly plain. I also feel that the disputations occurring among the apostles show that even they didn’t always have a perfect grasp of the task they had been left to accomplish.

My assertion is that true Christianity completely collapsed in the first and second centuries. After that, people started trying to salvage something from the wreckage – most of our New Testament source manuscripts date to after that time. Gradually, as Christians were forced to defend themselves from Roman critics, a greater awareness of surrounding learning and philosophies took root in the early Christian Church. People started couching their religious arguments in the terminology of the surrounding Greek intellectual framework.

Unlike many of my fellow Mormons, I do not consider the adoption of Greek philosophy into the Christian church to be a unqualified negative. Frankly, the state of early Christian orthodoxy was an utter mess. If something hadn’t been done at Nicea, it’s entirely possible the entire thing would have faded away just like Roman paganism did. The infusion of Greek philosophy into Christian theology probably saved the religion from a long slow death.

But it came at a real price. My view is that the entire traditional Christian ontology of God has been deeply flawed for the past 2,000 years as a result of its dependence on neoplatonist assumptions about reality. Why do concepts like “essence,” “substance,” and the distinction between created and uncreated even matter? Why is having a physical form a limitation? Why is an “Unmoved Mover” even a philosophical necessity? Why is the eternity of matter so objectionable?

All of these things are not products of an unbiased reading of the Bible. They are purely the concerns of Greek philosophy.

Don’t get me wrong – Greek philosophy was pretty nifty and all. But that doesn’t make it God’s own referee.

Now, what did Joseph Smith “restore?”

Ask a sampling of Mormons, and chances are they’ll indicate he restored the Christianity of the apostles.

I respectfully disagree.

What Joseph Smith did, was restore the true pattern of the One Religion that has held true (with interruptions) throughout human history from Adam on down. Many people point out that Mormonism is actually a remarkably Old Testament sort of religion, and I agree with them. Joseph didn’t just restore Peter and Paul’s religion. He restored Abraham and Moses’ religion as well. The one true pattern of religion that has endured throughout history.

Many Mormons think that Joseph Smith’s job was to recreate a carbon-copy of Peterine Christianity. I think this is wrong-headed. Aside from the fact that modern day Mormonism does not resemble Peter’s Christianity much in structure, one has to ask the question why you would want to restore Peter’s Christianity in the first place. Peter’s Christianity was, frankly, a hopeless mess of competing authority structures, undisciplined ritual and practice, and rival personalities.

You don’t want to recreate that!

No, what you want to do is fix that!

This was Joseph’s mission – to restore the true order of God’s kingdom on earth – to restore the temple – to restore the Priesthood – to re-establish the human ritual interface with God.

God has always interacted with his children via ritual. The current Protestant rejection of ritual as a component of worship is primarily a backlash against perceived Catholic excesses, but that doesn’t mean ritual wasn’t the proper way to connect with God to begin with.

There is a gaping hole in modern Christianity on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem where the Dome of the Rock now sits. Joseph Smith’s mission was to fill that hole. And he did.

Seth R. on 07 Apr 2009 at 3:33 pm

Dear Seth,

Out of all your comments from all of the blogs that we’ve interacted on, that last comment of yours is by far the best one you’ve ever written.

I love it!! And with all candor, I love it because it fully exposes and reveals what an unbridgeable chasm there is between Mormonism and biblical Christianity.

Thank you Seth.

Well John,

Do your really want to project a Puritan sexuality onto God?

I cannot speak to Hugh Nibley’s analysis here.

I do know that Mormonism does away with the Puritan disgust with sex (or at least attempts to). We do not associate it with the Original Sin (in fact, we do not ascribe to the common view of Original Sin at all). We do not hold to the misogynist notions that Eve somehow introduced sin into the world with the apple as an image for sexuality. We feel that when constrained within the bonds that God has decreed, sexuality is a beautiful thing – the closest thing, in fact, to a human approximation of the power of God.

We affirm that gender is eternal. And yes, there is a very, very undefined doctrine of a Heavenly Mother in there as well (mostly not talked-about by lay Mormons). We do believe that God is, in some sense at least, a sexual being.

Does this require crass images of some heavenly baby-making machine. Of course not. And we find such crass imagery offensive. We have no idea what the mechanism was for our Father and Mother to create spirit children. Did it involve sex? Or just a powerful symbolic expression of love?

I honestly have no idea.

The picture is complicated by the modern Mormon tendency to pick up on the sexual baggage of their repressed Protestant neighbors. It is also complicated by the ever-present need to keep the powerful and potentially destructive nature of sexuality under tight reign. Mormons are not, and have never been “free love” people. We have always – at all stages of our church history – advocated that sex be restrained by covenant before God.

And just a note for the uninformed reading this – no, we do not practice mortal polygamy anymore. Not that I feel any need to apologize for historic polygamy in the LDS Church, but it’s best that everyone keep firmly in mind what the LDS Church is today.

TUAD, there are some very unbridgeable portions of Mormonism’s relations with the rest of the Christian world.

It’s just that the chasm is not where most people think it is. For instance, here are a few that I think are not even remotely unbridgeable:

1. Grace vs. Works

My experience is that Evangelicals (our primary opponents on this issue) tend to talk much differently about grace and works when they think no Mormons are listening. I don’t think we’re even half as different on this issue as our critics would like people to think.

2. Open vs. Closed Canon

The reality is that Mormons are not as “open” and the rest of Christianity is not as “closed” as we might indicate in our rhetoric.

3. The role of ritual in religious belief:

This runs the gamut. There are certainly Protestants out there who prize ritual in worship just as highly as Mormons do. On the other side, no Mormon would claim that the ordinance itself saves – but rather the power that is invoked by the ordinance.

I don’t mind acknowledging differences, as long as the portrayal is accurate. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t areas of commonality as well.

Thanks Seth. I knew very little about Mormonism and the similarities and differences between it and traditional Christianity. Now I know a great deal more. Not that I’m converting or anything, but it helps to hear things first hand from a believer in it, rather than second or third hand.

regards,
John

Seth R,

First of all let me state that I have been talking to you as honestly as I can, from a point of view of presenting Christianity, as stated in the Bible. If that happens to agree with others opinions here, that’s probably because we consider the Bible our source of evidence, not the book of Mormon. But, on the other hand, I will uphold the word of God, against all comers. You are apparently an attorney, judging from your style of arguing – i.e. coming at things from either the side of the prosecution or the side of the defense.

Our difference is in approach. I am a former journalist, now retired except for the bit of blogging I do. I try to present all the the facts, and ask questions from that point of view. And, I don’t accept them as such until I have both a reliable and verifiable source. As long as you can understand that we can continue this discussion, as a polite, and hopefully educational debate for all concerned.

So having said that, let me address your points one at time, which may take us several posts to do so in depth.

First of all Mormonism is a different gospel, because it reflects the unsubstantiated views of one man, or I should say, boy, because that’s what Joseph Smith was when he received the first vision. He was by His own admission alone in the woods. Yet when the voice of God came out of heaven declaring Jesus as His beloved Son, there were witnesses to it.

And, is it not also true that there is no ‘official’ statement of Mormon beliefs, explaining the church’s position on certain issues, except for the Encyclopedia of Mormon published in 1992? And, it evidently concerns a proviso that state that it’s contents do not necessarily represent the position of the church. What then does your doctrine rest upon?

As far as the role of Smith, as compared to the apostles, the very definition of prophets is different from that of an apostle, which if you are familiar with the Christian Bible you already know. Their job descriptions are quite different. So if Smith was indeed a prophet of God and they contained the word of God, why weren’t the golden tablets presented to all the world to see, like the manuscripts of the Bible?

Now, you claim Mormonism is not a different gospel, but you said the
original gospel was lost, after the death of the apostles, and Joseph Smith restored it. Restored it from what? On what verifiable source do you base your claim?

There were scores of people who witnessed Christ’s resurrection. There have been parts of the Bible found all over the world, in areas where people couldn’t have conspired together to create it, because of distance and the constraints of time, so the manuscripts written by 66 different writers over centuries, many of whom were not learned men either, are remarkable in their similarity.

So, how did Joseph Smith fix something that was already a done deal? And not broken?

As for him restoring the temple, The Jewish temple was not meant for Christians anyway. While we gather in churches of wood and stone to worship God, just like you do, scripture tells us we are each living temples of the Holy Spirit, so no matter where we go we carry Christ’s church with us. Christianity isn’t about a place, it’s about a person. So Joseph Smith may have built a temple, but it is nevertheless one which does not represent the true Body of Christ, which is a living breathing entity, with Him as the head.

As to the priesthood, Hebrews tells us that Christ is our high priest, so there would be no real reason to restore the Levite, or the Melchizedek priesthood, because they were just forerunners – types and shadows of the priesthood that Christ was Himself to become.

I will have to address the rest of your points in other posts, if you do wish to continue this discussion, because this one is getting much too long already.

Asking for a formalized codex containing all of Mormon Doctrine is asking the wrong question.

Mormonism is a relatively young religion, and like early Christianity does not have the most developed approach to theology. Like most early religions, the focus is more correct practice rather than correct theological belief. Mormonism is more focused on orthopraxy than orthodoxy. So to ask us for a go-to source for orthodoxy is asking the wrong question because honestly, most Mormons aren’t all that bothered about orthodoxy and questions of orthodoxy. Questions of practice and community concern us more.

That said, here are the sources of Mormon doctrine, in order of importance:

1. Canonized scripture. Currently this Entails the Holy Bible (we use the KJV), the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants.

A book does not become canonized in the LDS Church until it has been presented to the entire membership of the Church and sustained as such. I believe the last time this occurred was in relation to some passages in the Doctrine and Covenants. All other sources of doctrine must be tested against this canon.

2. Statements of living prophets (this includes the President of the Church and the other Apostles) spoken officially to the Church and disseminated to the Church.

The current vehicle for doing this is the official magazine of the LDS Church (“The Ensign” in the US and “The Liahona” elsewhere). General Conference addresses (in their final published form) are a good example. Official declarations such as the recent “Proclamation on the Family” are another good example.

3. Doctrine as disseminated in official LDS study materials – such as the teachers guides for youth classes, or Gospel Doctrine handbooks.

You have to be careful to constantly reassess these sources against numbers 1 and 2 however. Especially in light of #2 since Church manuals have been known to become outdated in some respects years before new updates are budgeted for. For instance, you might find an old quote from a long dead apostle in a current Church study guide that presents a certain spin on the question of “grace vs. works.” But you have to read that quote in light of the more recent statements made by living General Authorities. The famous “Church Handbook of Instructions” disseminated to LDS local leadership also falls into this category. Statements made on the LDS Newsroom website would also fall into this category.

4. Doctrine as presented by past prophets and apostles.

The Journal of Discourses – that document Evangelicals are always mining for radioactive Brigham Young quotes – falls into this category. Even old Joseph Smith quotes can fall into this category – although his prestige within Mormon belief often prevents his quotes from falling out of favor so quickly. The idea is that the LIVING prophet takes precedence in guiding the present-day Church. Old quotes do not always stand the test of time. Brigham Young’s Adam-God idea being a prime example. No one in the LDS Church really knows what Brigham meant by those quotes, they seem to conflict with what we know of canonized LDS scripture, and even Brigham Young himself seemed to contradict the notion on occasion in his own statements. Thus the doctrine was discarded.

This is not overly concerning from a Mormon perspective. We never claimed our prophets were infallible to begin with. Nor did we ever claim they were exempt from being tested against the scriptures, or even against plain common sense. Prophets in the Mormon tradition are always subject to a great many checks and balances. Those who expect to find a theological dictator with an iron-grasp over the beliefs of the membership will be disappointed (or pleasantly surprised). The LDS Church appears authoritarian on the outside, but in reality, it is surprisingly democratic.

5. Books apostles write in their spare time, and statements made by General Authorities that were never meant for Church-wide dissemination.

The most obvious example is apostle Bruce R. McConkie’s landmark book – “Mormon Doctrine.” It’s an invaluable resource and shows a great deal of care and scripture cross-referencing. It’s a resource I use all the time. And most of the time, it gets the doctrine right. Most of the time….

McConkie’s fellow apostles and even the President David O. McKay specifically asked McConkie not to publish the book. They did not want a single apostle giving the impression that he was speaking definitively for Mormon doctrine. The title of the book certainly didn’t help matters. McConkie disregarded the advice and published it anyway. After a few years of circulation, McConkie was forced retract certain incendiary remarks about Catholics and his own theories about the eternal status of certain racial groups.

It’s a dang useful book and will give a lot of insight. But you’ll get a warped view of Mormonism from McConkie if you don’t test it against the doctrinal sources that are higher in priority and status.

Another book example along these lines is Spencer W. Kimball’s book – “The Miracle of Forgiveness.” Another good book that has become something of gold mine for Evangelicals wishing to proof-text how Mormons are obsessed with works at the expense of grace. I personally think the book is a bit dated and due for another book to come along and unseat it. Kimball wrote it as an apostle, not as President of the Church (which gives it less status than something that the President would have written).

Books written by apostles really should not be viewed as binding – merely persuasive. Sort of like rabbinic commentary on the Torah in the Jewish tradition.

6. Here you have all the other LDS books published. They aren’t published by General Authorities which means they will have varying force and persuasiveness depending on the author. Hugh Nibley has a lot of cachet in some circles. In others Robert Millet or Stephen Robinson might be highly regarded. In yet others, you might have lay LDS gushing over the latest Chicken Soup for the Soul-style offering from a popular LDS author from the youth speaking circuit or what have you. The “Encyclopedia on Mormonism” actually falls into this category. It had a lot of scholarly input and I believe they were being as careful as they possibly could in their pronouncements. But it is still not the final word.

All of these sources are best viewed with a highly critical eye.

That’s the best I can do for a summary for you.

I hope it’s becoming clear to the readers here that defining the limits of Mormon doctrine is more of an art than a science.

I don’t consider this a bad thing. I’m sure others here disagree with me, but I like the flexibility and natural adaptivity that is built into the LDS interface with doctrine. It makes for a religion that is far more exciting to me than any of the alternatives.

Thank you Seth. I must say this is one of the better and more complete explanations I’ve heard so far of why Mormon doctrine is constantly changing.

Now for the question I think anyone who is reading this conversation may be wondering at this point, what did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young say that has been since discounted or changed to reflect the latest view of Mormon theology?

I might as well point it out since someone else is bound to:

I’ve already mentioned Brigham Young’s cryptic remarks about Adam being somehow, in some sense, “God.” Evangelicals usually like to dredge this one up as proof of idolatry or polytheism or some such.

But the fact is, his remarks on the subject are extremely vague and cryptic. He never really explained them satisfactorily, and Brigham’s own teachings in other places seem to directly contradict the read that counter-cult ministries attempt to take on it.

Then there is the further factor to add in that prophets do not always speak “as prophets.” If Joseph Smith were to remark to his wife one day “Emma, you burnt the toast” would anyone here consider this the “Word of God?”

No, it’s just Joseph the man talking.

Another easy example is the silly little argument I’ve heard some counter-cult ministries bring up that Joseph Smith prophesied of moon-men. I use this example because it provides a good illustration of how Mormonism has been distorted over the years by counter-cult arguments.

First off, when you look at the sources for this supposed belief of Joseph’s, you find they are all second or even third hand accounts – sometimes of dubious reliability. You find that there is no evidence whatsoever, that he “prophesied” anything of the sort. And you find little reliable evidence that he even made any statement whatsoever of the subject. It seems quite clear that if Joseph Smith did ever say anything about the moon being inhabited, it was simply him expressing his own opinion or speculation (belief in the moon being inhabited was a common conceit in the 1800s and was held by some rather notable men whom we all respect very much today).

So, when the sheer sensationalism is stripped away, you are left with nothing more than an idle campfire speculation that some Joseph Smith groupie took, distorted in his own mind, and then reported later as some big revelation.

Simply put – there’s nothing there, “there.”

It gets tougher when a prophet seems to be declaring actual doctrine. But in that instance, you have to ask again whether he is truly putting it out as doctrine for the entire church, or again, if he is just sharing his own speculations and opinion for a limited audience. A lot of the most sensational counter-cult gotcha quotes are acquired from simple statements of personal opinion and where never meant to be doctrinal in the first place.

Seth said:

“It gets tougher when a prophet seems to be declaring actual doctrine. But in that instance, you have to ask again whether he is truly putting it out as doctrine for the entire church, or again, if he is just sharing his own speculations and opinion for a limited audience. A lot of the most sensational counter-cult gotcha quotes are acquired from simple statements of personal opinion and where never meant to be doctrinal in the first place.”

So what is where is that Mormons themselves divide the two, and how does the church discern the difference?

MBaker asked:
“So what is where is that Mormons themselves divide the two, and how does the church discern the difference?”

Ultimately it is the Spirit of God confirming the doctrine or not to the average Mormon or Mormon leadership.

Jared,

I think that’s where everyone, Christian and Mormon alike says they confirm the doctrine, however, in this case, because I am trying to hear specifics by asking asking and listening to both sides of the story, I am asking for a second opinion from Seth. I think you have already made your own position perfectly clear in the comments above.

Interesting to see this topic got new life somehow.

Since I got quoted by TUAD, I guess I’ll need to stay tuned again 😉

Seth R,
Thanks for jumping in on this. There’s some very good explanations in what you just posted. Indeed a lot of it is clearer than what I have seen on this blog before. Thanks for that.

I want to clarify what I said in those quotes. For more on my stance, scan the posts with my name. I think we also interacted a little bit on ldstalk, so you may remember.

The question on this post is really on whether the Mormon faith is a good representation of Christianity.

You admitted that Joseph Smith came to restore the Christian faith after the apostasy. Meaning there are fundamental things that needed restored. Whether that be true or not, it led to a faith that is in my opinion and from what I have read and understood, fundamentally different from what we call Christian today.

My main argument: The major Christian faiths, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant, all adhere to the mystery of the Trinity and accept the Nicean creed in most of its form. I know there’s some minor differences (filio-que clause and all that), but that doesn’t detract from the core.

You are more than welcome to debate that we are wrong, that the writings of the Early Church Fathers were mingled with Greek philosophy, etc.. Nonetheless, the Trinity is part of what is called The Christian Faith. I agree not all Christian understand it quite correctly, you can argue that some adhere to modalist points of view, etc.. Admittedly, I don’t fully comprehend it either, hence I called it “the mystery of the Trinity”.

But I do know the Mormon faith does not accept the Trinity as One God in Three persons. It’s Three persons, operating as one. As such, due to the differences restored by Joseph Smith, the Mormon Faith is not an accurate representation of it.

To give a similar reasoning: You can make the argument that Islam is a good representation of Christianity because they were “Corrected” thanks to the revelations given to Mohamed. Hence their interpretation of who Christ is and what he was and did is the correct interpretation, so therefore they are the “true” Christians. You can quickly see the argument doesn’t hold one bit.

With all due respect, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart, the Mormon faith is too different to be called an “Accurate representation of Christianity”. I know quite a few Mormons personally and have a tremendous respect for them and we talk to each other quite amicably. I used to work with a datacenter in Orem and was fortunate enough to travel there quite a lot. So please trust me when I mean that I do have respect for your beliefs and faith. Definitely for your education, which is far higher than mine and even higher when considering the average Evangelical.

All that being said, we can always have a continuing discussion on who’s right or who’s wrong and why. And basically.. it’s not going to matter since only God knows and we have to recognize that we are limited. But we have to get to that common understanding that there is a huge gap between what we believe.

As you point out, there’s commonalities as well. But the core is what really matters and that’s where we differ.

Hope this clarified.
In Him
Mick

One final comment

I do admit that the Mormon faith outwardly actually has a lot more in common with Roman Catholicism than with Protestantism.

Some quick examples (perhaps farfetched)
* Strict hierarchy of the Church leadership
* Central “Temple” (St. Peters)
* Clear hierarchy in doctrines (Concilia of the RC)
* Clear doctrine that they are the only true Church (although RC’s are backing off on this one lately)
* Baptism is needed for salvation

etc…

Some of these are perhaps a bit superficial, but I got my next assignment to compare the clear doctrines behind these 😉

Just food for thought I guess

In Him
Mick

Michael,

I have never felt anything but respect from you in your comments. And yes, I do remember our other interactions.

To address your question though… I do think we’re very different from what’s already established in worldwide Christianity and what is accepted. No question there. But I also think your argument basically comes from a sort of status quo position. Christianity is what it is and any attempt to broaden or evolve the concept of Christian should be automatically rejected.

That’s not a position a typical Mormon is going to be able to accept I’m afraid (I imagine that isn’t a surprise to you).

mbaker,

Good question. Where do you draw the line?

This is a difficult question in any religion, not just Mormonism. The problem is that people often join a religion because it provides answers, it provides certainties. This is one of the major draws and attractions of, I think, any religion. Mormonism is no exception. It proposes to answer some pretty big questions and thrives in areas that traditional Christianity remains uncertain or tentative on – such as what we did before birth and what we will do after death.

So here I am saying that maybe the answers aren’t as clear cut as we were all hoping when we signed up. What’s up with that?

I can only respond that I think we run into trouble when we try to make the certainties in a religion more extensive than they really are. Mormonism has some definite certainties – God’s love for us, the reality of Christ’s Atonement and that God still interfaces with his children. But you get beyond these core certainties and you’ll find that God, like a good parent, has left us a bit of room to roam. Depending who you are, that can be exciting or terrifying (or a little of both).

A big problem in the LDS Church today, just according to me, is a certain complacency and smugness that has crept in. We think we have it all figured out, because we assume that our religion has nailed down a lot of things that it really doesn’t. This kind of thinking is exactly where the fundamentalist mindset comes from. The desire to remove the guesswork, pin God in a corner and force him to give us a straight answer. We don’t want a Bible that we have to think about and question. We want the Bible to act like the assembly instructions on that bicycle we bought for our kid last Christmas. We want it plain as plain, black and white, no room for guesswork or questions.

There is a scripture on this point in the Book of Mormon actually and it states that it is a “slothful servant who must be commanded in all things.” But we really are wired this way. We want shortcuts. Yes or no. We don’t want to have to work at our belief.

The same sorts of motivations are at work when people follow or criticize the Mormon prophets.

If Brigham Young said it, does that mean it’s always true? Well a lot of counter-cult ministries would say yeah – if Brigham Young said it, that means that any faithful Mormon must believe it, and if he doesn’t, that means he rejects Young’s prophetic calling. Black and white. No guesswork required.

But I think most of us agree that’s a bit extreme. Even assuming Brigham Young was a prophet (as LDS do), it can’t be true that EVERY last little thing he said was the word of God, and if it can be demonstrated false, that refutes his “prophet” status.

But if you simply discount everything Young said as “just his own opinion” then the force of his prophetic call is greatly reduced, is it not?

I think Brigham Young himself gave a few guidelines. He himself stated that his pronouncements were only to be considered doctrinal if he declared them as such, and had them disseminated to the membership of the Church. That alone eliminates a lot of things he said when looking for what is binding. But I think even Young himself was not as careful about the distinction as he probably needed to be. This is why a firm grasp on the Book of Mormon, Bible, D&C and PoGP is so crucial. You have to have a frame of reference from which to accept or reject what a prophet says.

The problem is when you reach one of those areas where different members reach different conclusions about the scripture and use differing authorities to back up their conclusions. For example, my dad and I disagree on whether Mormon doctrine demands the view that there was no death in the world before the Fall of Adam.

My father has LDS authorities to marshal in defense of his views. One notable one is Bruce R. McConkie whom I already mentioned. McConkie plainly declares that the was no death before the fall.

I disagree with this view because I don’t take the scriptures as presenting us with firm guidelines on that particular issue. Nor do I see much utility in the scriptures declaring that aspect of world history. I also look at the scientific evidence in favor of an earth that just doesn’t seem to match up with that viewpoint. I also read certain key verses and symbolic in nature. Then I read official statements from the LDS First Presidency stating that the LDS Church takes no position on issues such as evolution. I ponder all this, and it seems to me that McConkie is simply overreaching in his analysis. So my dad and I disagree.

But is this a problem? As a practical matter, I don’t think it is. No death before the fall really isn’t that big a deal in the big scheme of things. But there are doctrinal questions that are a bigger deal. Was God ever a “sinful man” who “grew to become God?”

I don’t think that question is quite so big a deal as many of the Christians I debate with seem to think it is, but it certainly isn’t unimportant. It speaks to the nature of the God we worship. And you’ll find Mormons who believe God was, and you’ll find Mormons who are adamant that he wasn’t. Both agreement and disagreement with the “sinful man” idea exist within the LDS Church. How do you draw the line here and say whether God being a sinful man is definitely “in” or “out” as a doctrine?

The answer is that you don’t. The clarification we need is not forthcoming so far. And it is never any Mormon’s place to condemn a doctrine that the Lord has chosen to remain silent or ambiguous on. People are free to hold a surprising diversity of beliefs within the LDS Church. That’s why it’s so important for any Christian who wishes to engage Mormonism to engage the individual Mormon and not the broad conceptual categories he brings to Mormonism. We have very different beliefs from person-to-person. I myself am considered quite eccentric in certain Mormon circles. So you can’t take me as representative of the average Mormon. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that doctrinally, the average Mormon is more an assumption than a reality.

So I don’t think I have much satisfaction for you here.

But there is one final Mormon doctrine you need to be aware of – the idea of “by common consent.”

The LDS Church operates on the basis of being sustained and supported by its membership. We rely on members to contribute time and money to the work. We have a lay ministry. As a result, there is a firm notion in the LDS Church that each member has a solemn obligation to study out each assertion and teaching of the LDS Church for herself and pray to God for a witness of it. This is not about asking God for warm fuzzies. It involves a serious program of study and pondering. We exercise every resource available to us to determine whether something in the LDS Church is something we can sustain. And then we pray for a witness. If the witness is not forthcoming, then we need not believe that doctrine or teaching.

So if you’re looking for a dividing line for LDS doctrine, maybe that’s it – direct confirmation from God. That’s really the best I can do for you on the gray areas where there isn’t a clear choice to make.

Joseph Smith and moon-men is a pretty cut and dried example where we obviously don’t have to hop on board.

The recent Proclamation on the Family is a pretty cut and dried example of something we Mormons are supposed to support.

The role of evolution in the earth’s creation and what God was doing before we happened along? Gray areas where you could go either way based on the criteria I listed above. Your only recourse is prayer and personal study.

If you’re going to think about Mormonism in a serious way, it is not a religion where you can just “consult the manual” and get a quick and dirty answer. We all take responsibility for our own witness. I think the biggest weakness of the fundamentalist mindset is that the fundamentalist refuses to take such responsibility for his own witness.

Sorry, but life’s rough that way and I don’t have a clear answer for you.

Seth R,

So in essence Mormonism is whatever the person, after study, deems it to mean individually? I can’t help but think that’s like the religious relativism that we see in the charismatic fringe, where ‘doctrine’ and prophecy equate to the same thing, and it is ever changing.

I am not a fundamentalist in the sense that you seem to define, however I do believe Christianity answers a lot more questions than it raises for me, simply because its fundamental tenets are already clearly defined. And, to use a sports metaphor, you can’t play the game if you don’t know the game plan.

Thanks for taking the time to provide all the information you have. My husband is Christian, from a family who largely remains Mormon. Some are fundamentalist to the point of legalism, like some Christians, and some are, as you described, very fluid in their beliefs.

However, I’ll stick with Christianity, because to me it provides more security in a chaotic world. There is a peace and eternal order in it, a foundational, rather than fundamentalist mindset that I like.

I don’t think once a foundation is built it’s wise to go messing with it, after you’ve built something on it already. Christianity clearly states that Christ is the cornerstone of our beliefs, and the cross its guarantee, and that does not change. Other religions I find are based upon mere men’s ideas that change from generation to generation. I want something higher and better than just my fellow man’s opinions on which to pin my hopes.

Thanks again for your time and great conversation so far.

I didn’t say that Mormonism isn’t clear on anything and that everything depends solely on personal spiritual witness. But it is an additional method of arriving at truth within the religion.

I also don’t think it’s entirely clear that Christianity itself avoids this same problem. The sheer diversity of belief within the Christian community seems to demonstrate this.

Yes, you are right. In fact there is a saying among Christians that we agree on the essentials, allow disagreement on the non-essentials, but are united in our belief that the Bible is the deciding factor in all disputes.

The RC’s and extreme charismatics are a notable exception, because they attempt to elevate their churches and leader’s beliefs above the traditionally accepted tenets of the faith that most Christians agree are essential. I have several Catholic friends that don’t know this, and are shocked when they learn the truth.

That’s why there is often such a great uproar against RC’s in Christian circles, not because of religious prejudice.

This is the same thing I see in Mormonism. The Bible has been added to and subtracted at will by the ‘prophets’ of the LDS, and the church now has a doctrine the sum total of which is apparently not completely clear to anyone in the church, much less out of it.

Seth R

Although I agree with several of your statements, there’s a danger in that path.

I agree with
The desire to remove the guesswork, pin God in a corner and force him to give us a straight answer. We don’t want a Bible that we have to think about and question.
We often like to do that because we want God to conform to us, not the other way around. We’re arrogant in that we like to figure it all out and pat ourselves on the shoulder.

Christianity is what it is and any attempt to broaden or evolve the concept of Christian should be automatically rejected
Another very valid point. I do think Christian debate can enrich our faith and bring us closer to God. Understand Him.. not on this side. Closer ? Absolutely. I know I’ve grown a lot stronger in my faith trying to reason through things.

Gray areas where you could go either way based on the criteria I listed above. Your only recourse is prayer and personal study
As I mentioned before, I think, I agree that there are several “Gray” areas in which we can somewhat agree to disagree. I like the adagio of The main thing is that the main thing remains the main thing

And here is where we enter the slippery slope. What do we define as The Main Thing ?

For Christianity, I believe that the understanding of Christ, His role, His deity, His substitutionary atonement, His physical resurrection are core elements that are the main thing. Once we get to different conclusions about that, we are no longer discussing the same faith.

Whether one thinks he was just a great teacher as some humanists do, or a prophet like Islam does, or a Spiritual Son of the Father who is a brother of Lucifer and came up with a better plan of salvation; these are fundamental interpretations or beliefs on who Christ was. And once you diverge from the following below, I think you’re out of the Christianity path

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

I know you’ll might use the “Son of God” item in there, but it clearly states ONLY, which contradicts the doctrine of Lucifer being his brother. Or at least I understand it to be doctrine.

In addition, we believe Christ is fully God. Not some form of progression from a Spirit Child. DC 93, especially 12-14 are challenging in this respect. Those passages almost sound like some form of “Adoptionalism”. And it was refuted by the Early Christian Fathers even before the council of Nicea

Finally, the Mormon doctrine on the Trinity being three persons united in purpose, is close to the early idea of Nestorianism, which was condemned at Chalcedon. I know you can argue this was part of the apostasy, so I admit it’s a pretty weak argument 😉

In conclusion, I do sincerely appreciate you trying to set us straight and I do know a lot of us need to let go of our knee-jerk reactions against the Mormon faith. And it that respect, your posts are quite educational. On the other hand, I still have not seen or read or heard anything that would repudiate my statement.

Perhaps you can clarify for me whether DC 93 is part of accepted Mormon doctrine or whether it falls into one of the “grey” areas. It may help me see whether or not I should change my position.

In Him
Mick

mbaker,

That depends on what you need the doctrine for.

Such doctrinal leeway is not really a problem for a workaday religion that is primarily focused on Gospel-living. We’re reaching the barrier I often reach in debating with other Christians online. The more informed segment of the Christian population that tends to be represented in online debates has a certain bias towards orthodoxy as the overriding control in religious life.

But orthodoxy is not the only way to conduct a religion. In fact historically, I think orthodoxy is a bit of an aberration. Orthopraxy has always been the more common way to run a religion.

This is Mormonism’s focus – orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. It’s a very practical religion. People who believe God the Father grew to be God sit next to people who utterly reject that notion in Mormon congregations and both take the Sacrament in full fellowship. We avoid these problems by focusing on the essentials.

Joseph Smith said that the whole point of the Restored Gospel was Christ and his atonement and that all other doctrines or teachings are mere appendages to it. You’ll find that modern Mormon worship services tend to avoid all this speculative stuff. We don’t generally care how Christ was conceived by Mary. We don’t really bother much with what God was doing before he created our spirit forms, or what gender the Holy Ghost has. We don’t speculate about “Celestial polygamy” or what the particulars of Mormon exaltation are. We try to keep our communal participation on the basic common-ground level. Our main concerns are lives of Christian service.

All that theology stuff can be left to the philosophers.

The problem is that other Christians prize orthodoxy more than Mormons generally do. So they are constantly harping on us to flesh out these doctrinally ambiguous or disturbing areas. Most Mormons, when confronted by this orthodox concern are a little confused.

“Why are you bothering with that? Nobody here at church worries about that? Why not ask me about something that actually matters?”

That’s kind of the sentiment I think you’ll run into with most Mormons. We don’t go in much for theological speculation (I’m a bit of a statistical outlier in the Mormon community). Our concern is solely with how religion impacts the worshiper’s life and actions. Questions of whether God has more than one wife are somewhat beside the point to that central concern.

Just don’t assume that it’s an orthodox world when talking to Mormons. That’s all I’m saying.

Michael,

I assume this is the passage you had in mind:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

(Doctrine and Covenants 93:29-36)

This is indeed still a part of present day Mormon doctrine. It is still binding as canon. As I mentioned, it might not be always fully emphasized in individual Mormon belief. But it is still in there, and I don’t think it is negotiable.

Human beings and the universe have always existed in some form or other under Mormon theology. There is no beginning to them. We reject creation ex nihilo.

Hope that’s clear enough.

Seth and Michael L are correct on the flexibility in Christian doctrine–even the RC’s allow that protestants are saved and part of the people of God though not part of the true church. And we would count in the Eastern Orthodox. And charismatics and pentacostals too, even though there are cessationist protestants who believe that many of the gifts no longer exist in church life. And there are several theories of the atonement, which are ususally described as being complementary rather than contradictory.

The late Johannes Cardinal Willebrands, longtime head of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, was fond of saying, “Christ and the Church are coterminous.” I take that to mean that, if one is in a living relationship with Christ, one is also in relationship with his Church, for body and head cannot be separated. Therefore communities of faith outside the Catholic Church are “ecclesial” communities, but not part of the True Church. The Lumen Gentium says that non-Catholics who are baptized and believe in Christ are in a “certain but imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.”

So how much do we have to have wrong before we are no longer part of the traditional Christian faith (by traditional, I mean what’s been around for several hundred or thousand years in terms of key doctrines).

Outside we would definitely have to place Muslims, although they claim to worship the God of Abraham and believe that Jesus was a prophet. That is not enough, as is evident in the defrocking of Ann Holmes Redding, an Episcopal priest who converted to Islam but kept being a priest because she personally saw no conflict. After Redding remained firm in her belief that she was called to both faiths, her Bishop (Wolf) said in fall 2008 that a church committee had determined that the priest “abandoned the Communion of the Episcopal Church by formal admission into a religious body not in communion with the Episcopal Church.”

Wolf barred Redding from functioning as a priest for the next six months, and said that unless Redding resigned her priesthood or denied being a Muslim during that time, the bishop would have a duty to defrock her. The Rev. Kendall Harmon, the canon theologian with the Diocese of South Carolina said that “what’s at stake is central to the church,” “To be a Christian is to be a Trinitarian and worship Jesus. If we’re not clear on that, we have nothing to offer in our witness.”

Redding does not believe that God and Jesus are the same, but rather that God is more than Jesus. And she believes that Jesus is the Son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans.

It’s interesting that the “Arizona Republic” newspaper has reported that illegal immigrant Latinos overwhelmingly are raised Catholic, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is aggressively reaching out to them by touting the religion’s heavy focus on family and community, pillars of the Mormon faith that are also at the center of Hispanic culture. As a result, Mormon church leaders report that Latinos are joining the Mormon Church at a greater rate than members of any ethnic group, even Anglos.

I did not know that when Brigham Young left Illinois for the Western North America, the region he ended up in was part of Mexico and portions of where they settled are still part of Mexico today. In fact, it’s estimated that there are more than a million Mormons in Mexico.

regards,
John

Seth,

Thanks for that passage. It’s part of the challenge, yes. Because it means “man” has existed forever and is not a creation. Or at least part of it surrounding the “intelligence” or “the truth”.

The passages out of 93 that I have more challenges with are these:

progression of Christ
12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

Which is not in harmony with the statements of the Trinitarian creeds where we accept Christ to be fully God. If he had a “first” in which he did not have fulness, it would mean he was some form of creation. Which we deny.

Adoptionalism
15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.
16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;
17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

Sounds like Christ becoming “fully God” at his baptism. Which is pure adoptionalism and was condemned as early as 268 (Synod of Antioch).

Humans progressing to reach “god-like” status
18 And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John.

Assuming the “fulness of the record of John” to mean the same as the “fulness of the glory of the Father” as in verses 16 and 17 above. Which means some “hidden knowledge” will be bestowed on us if we are faithful. Which to me is suspiciously close to some form of gnosticism.

Just some thoughts on DC 93. There’s some more I’ve read that I have challenges with. But I can use some clarification if I’m on the wrong interpretation path of these.

In Him
Mick

Seth to mbaker :”All that theology stuff can be left to the philosophers.”

I’m surprised at you, Seth, especially as a declared Open Theist, a religion which nowadays primarily follows leadership of religious philosophers like Dr. Greg Boyd. Your remark also sounds like a glib flip off reply of an extreme charismatic when asked what he believes, and he cannot present any real evidence, except that which is based upon his own personal experience.

Christians lead lives of service as well as Mormons, but that neither proves or disproves our religion, because it all rests with the work of one person – Jesus Christ. Many atheists do good works too, and live upstanding lives. So orthopraxy, in and of itself, is not sufficent evidence that Mormonism is valid Christianity.

And here’s an example of why Joseph Smith’s ‘theology’ is of paramount importance to Mormonism: it is his story of the golden tablets they present when missionaries come to the door, not the gospel of Jesus Christ! So, in the important issue of evangelism, to make the claim that the atonement is of primary importance to Mormon belief is not correct, if you are presenting orthopraxy as a valid argument. Mormon missionaries do not practice what you said above is preached regarding the atonement.

They present an alternative belief and call it a ‘restored’ gospel, but in actual practice it is replacement theology, based upon the experiences of LDS prophets, rather the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ.

So, like philosophy and theology, restoration and replacement are two entirely different things.

You know.. I went back to the original post and re-read the statements from the LCMS and RC’s that Michael posted. I also re-read this statement from him:

“Since Mormonism has redefined Christianity in such a way that the answer to the question “Who do men say that I am?” is not in accordance with the biblical and historical understanding (e.g. Jesus Christ is the eternal God-man) and since they reject the doctrine of the Trinity as one God who eternally exists in three persons, Mormons cannot be considered Christian without doing violence to the very essence of what it means to be Christian.”

I think that is the main topic of this thread and I have to agree with Michael. Unless someone can demonstrate to me that the Mormon doctrine does not redefine the biblical and historical understanding of Christ and the Trinity, I’m with Michael on this one.

Note: I refuse to use the word “Cult” in reference to the Mormon faith. I call it a faith and a church. I just can’t come to grips to call it “Christian” per se.

In Him
Mick